Back in July, Gavin Ortland released a video on the historical evidence for infant baptism

and concluded that the evidence supports what is called Credo baptism, or restricting baptism

to those who profess Christian faith and denying it to infants.

But he also admitted the evidence for the historicity of creto baptism isn't absolutely conclusive.

So in today's episode, I'll be putting forward a modest case for infant baptism

and respond to some of Gavin's points regarding the evidence for infant baptism.

But in order to keep this episode in manageable length, I won't be addressing every single point

Gavin made.

I'll just go over the major points.

And to promote the channel's renewed emphasis on charity and fair scholarship,

I sent a copy of this script to Gavin for review to make sure that I correctly understood

the argument he made in his initial video. So let's jump right in. First, I need to make it clear

that this is not a strictly Catholic Protestant issue. Most of the Protestants involved with the Reformation,

and those associated with the confessions from that period supported infant baptism.

Even if I was not Catholic, I would not be a Credo Baptist, or someone who thinks only believers

should receive baptism. That's because I am unwaveringly convinced of the evidence for the doctrines

of baptismal regeneration and the necessity of the practice of infant baptism, what's often called

pedobaptism. Because of this, I joined with Anglican, Lutheran, and many Presbyterians

who also affirm these doctrines and disciplines. Gavin grew up Presbyterian, but left that denomination

over the issue of infant baptism. However, his brother Dane is a Presbyterian pastor who holds

to the Westminster Confession, which says, not only those that do actually profess faith in

and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.

...